"Virginia's House vs. the world"

By: Lowell
Published On: 1/10/2008 9:04:01 AM

We've known for a long time that the Virginia House of Delegates marches to a different tune than most people, one focused on a far-right-wing ideology that the vast majority of Virginians do not share.  We've seen this in areas ranging from abuser "fees" (so they didn't have to raise "taxes"), opposition to Mark Warner's historic budget package, emphasis on harshly divisive wedge issues like "gay marriage" and abortion.

Today, the Washington Post slams the House for yet another ideologically driven, anti-science, anti-common sense stance, this time on smoking.  The Post writes that it's "Virginia's House vs. the world," and that's increasingly a true statement.  By February 1, 23 states and the District of Columbia (and Puerto Rico) will "have adopted such bans, according to the American Lung Association."  In addition, hundreds of cities, towns and counties around the country have adopted smoking bans, as have numerous countries, including formerly smoker paradise France.  But no, not right-wing Republicans in Virginia.  Apparently, this is too difficult for them to wrap their brains around:

Once, Virginia's pro-smoking lawmakers might have argued that the science on secondhand smoke was inconclusive. They have no such option today, as the ill effects of secondhand smoke are extensively documented. Instead, some lawmakers fall back on the insipid pretext that since most Virginia restaurants already prohibit smoking, there is no use in forcing the rest of them to follow suit. But what of the bartenders and servers and kitchen workers who may have no better employment options and consequently no choice but to work in a smoke-filled workplace? Are their chronic coughs, irritated nostrils and babies with low birth weights simply the collateral damage of the House's obstructionism?

Yet they refuse not to see the blindingly obvious right in front of their (smoke obscured?) eyes. Look, I can SOMEWHAT understand if someone who represents a district that relies heavily on tobacco might vote against a smoking ban, but what about everyone else?  What possible rationale could there be for this blatantly obvious public health measure, akin to banning other carcinogens like asbestos in schools and lead in gasoline?  Or do right-wing Republicans actually not care if people get sick, suffer and die from second hand smoke?  Of course, these are the same people who want to send women back to quack doctors and the "back alleys," call female contraceptives "chemical love canals," and spend their days thinking of more ways to increase profits to their corporate buddies at the expense of the rest of us.  

By the way, here's a short list of other countries with bans on smoking in restaurants:  Belgium, Brazil, Canada, England, France, (most of) Germany, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, and these places in the United States.  As always, the right-wing-controlled Virginia House of Delegates is behind just about everyone else, pretty much on everything.  Heckuva job, guys, are you proud of yourselves?


Comments



I will not eat in a restaurant which allows smoking (teacherken - 1/10/2008 9:18:05 AM)
I want to be able to taste what I am eating, for which I am paying.

And I don't want to smell nicotine in my clothes and hair after I leave.

I know I am not alone.



My favorite paper (Lowell - 1/10/2008 9:36:28 AM)
The Bristol Herald Courier, weighs in:

For the third year in a row, Virginia lawmakers have the opportunity to strike a blow for better health by banning smoking in restaurants.

We urge them to pass the ban. Lawmakers must stand up for state residents - a majority of whom support the ban - and quit performing acts of obeisance to the tobacco industry.

Amen.



Seriously ... (TheGreenMiles - 1/10/2008 9:40:11 AM)
Why can't we get a paper like that here in Arlington?


Because apparently Arlington's not (Lowell - 1/10/2008 9:43:15 AM)
as progressive as SWVA!


Or (leftofcenter - 1/10/2008 9:47:06 AM)
here in Charlottesville?


Falls Church News-Press (Sui Juris - 1/10/2008 7:17:42 PM)
The best Arlington paper around :)


What's NOVA delegates' excuse? (TheGreenMiles - 1/10/2008 9:39:44 AM)
Considering a full 70% of Northern Virginians support a ban, the eleven Northern Virginian delegates who voted against the ban last year are especially in focus.  The nine Republicans and two Democrats are: Dave Albo (R-Springfield), Chuck Caputo (D-Chantilly), Mark Cole (R-Fredericksburg), Jeff Frederick (R-Woodbridge), William J. Howell (R-Fredericksburg), Tim Hugo (R-Centreville), Bob Hull (D-Falls Church), Scott Lingamfelter (R-Woodbridge), Robert G. Marshall (R-Manassas), Joe T. May (R-Leesburg), and Jackson Miller (R-Manassas).  


There's no excuse whatsoever.... (Lowell - 1/10/2008 9:44:01 AM)
...particularly for the Democrats on that list.  What. The. Hell?


Does (leftofcenter - 1/10/2008 9:55:20 AM)
anything the virginia democrats do really surprise you anymore?


Well, actually, yes. (Lowell - 1/10/2008 9:57:00 AM)
I do NOT expect Democrats to be acting like this.  


I'll see your "What the Hell" and raise (Eric - 1/10/2008 10:20:36 AM)
it to a WTF.  There is no reason any of these NOVA reps should be voting against a smoking ban, much less our Democratic reps.  

Caputo and Hull need to account for their actions.  This is absolutely unacceptable from Democrats in this area and they better have a damn good reason for voting that way.



You're (leftofcenter - 1/10/2008 10:34:19 AM)
right however no one holds any of these guys accountable for anything. If we had a decent press in this state, maybe someone somewhere would be held acoutable for their votes, their actions (or non actions).
Sad state of affairs.I will say it again, it is up to us to hassle these guys. and we're a pretty apathetic group of citizens.
Except for the abuser fees-folks did jump on the bandwagon for that since it affected their wallets.


I'm Very Disappointed (jackiehva - 1/10/2008 10:46:45 AM)
tto see Joe May on that list.  I expected more from this fine man.  What's going on, Joe?  Did the tobacco lobby buy your vote?  

I refuse, refuse to enter a restaurant where smoking is permitted and I encourage others to do the same.  



Contact Hull and Caputo (Teddy - 1/10/2008 12:39:02 PM)
even if they are not "your" Delegates. Ask them for their rationale. Listen to what they say, and then let them have it with both barrels. I plan on doing so next time I see them (which I probably will onmy usual legislative trip to Richmond about cross-over time.

Who knows? There may be a quid pro quo in the vote for something else that Caputo and Hull want, but even if there is, one wonders why they trust the Republicans to honor any such horse-trading in the future dust-ups coming.



I (leftofcenter - 1/10/2008 9:45:08 AM)
smoke and even I and others support this ban. Anyone who can't sit in a restaurant for an hour and have a meal without a cigarette has some kind of a problem. When folks are paying for a meal they should not be subjected to our second hand smoke. I'm fine with that.
Wonder how the tobacco lobby will spin this.


What I don't understand is ANYONE (Lowell - 1/10/2008 9:55:52 AM)
who isn't directly invested in the tobacco industry (and even in that case!) who would oppose this commonsense, public health legislation.  It's not controversial in most of the world or most of the U.S.; why do the right-wing Republicans in the House of Delegates have a problem with this?  I presume, by this same reasoning, they want to get rid of all other OSHA regulations?


Because (leftofcenter - 1/10/2008 10:12:51 AM)
they are in bed with the tobacco lobby ($) and nationwide and here don't really care about citizens or believe in science.
They are just nuts. Their brains are wired differently from ours. I know this is a simplistic answer but it's the only one I can think of at the moment.


I tend to agree. (Lowell - 1/10/2008 10:15:29 AM)
At this point, with all the evidence about secondhand smoke, to oppose protecting people == especially those who work in the restaurants and may not have other options -- is simply "nuts."  I can think of no possible explanation except for pure nastiness.  


Two points to make.... (Used2Bneutral - 1/10/2008 10:36:16 AM)
One.... Tobacco is STILL a major cash crop of Virginia and at least North Carolina. The manufacture of cigarettes and the associated marketing organizations to the rest of the world are headquartered here in Virginia for the most part, big money, large constituencies, lots of jobs at stake.... this is not a justification, just a statement of facts.

Two.... A very large number of wealthy restaraunt/bar owners got together as a voting block and and applied huge business and financial pressure to the GA members on both sides of the aisle through the various business "Chambers of Commerce". This was an election year just past and the huge amount of money that was at stake could easily have changed the results of the elections in the close districts.

Also, after personally talking to several of the law makers involved, their by far greatest number of actual constituents who spoke up or whom voted with their check-books were in favor of maintaning a choice to smoke. Each of the GA members I spoke to about this felt that they had to vote for the opinions of the majority of their voters, something about how our form of representative government is supposed to work. This is NOW the time for everybody to speak-up and to destroy this objection to the smoking ban, using the power and numbers of the grass-roots voters from all partisan groups.



All good points (Eric - 1/10/2008 11:04:39 AM)
but they really aren't addressing the issue properly.

Specifically:
1. A restaurant smoking ban will have little effect on the overall tobacco industry.  Does anyone believe that if a smoker can't light up during dinner or in a bar that they'll simply give up and stop smoking altogether?   They might be fighting tooth and nail because they see this as a slippery slope, but this action by itself will have almost no impact on employment or profits in the tobacco industry.

2. This speaks to the more general problem of big business being able to buy influence where individuals can't.  But putting that issue aside, I'm not aware of any non-biased studies that have shown catastrophic (or even significant) negative effects on the food service industry when smoking has been banned.  Are people going to stop eating out?  Of course not.  A few smokers will bitch and moan, but they're still going to go out to eat and hang out in bars.  As long as all the restaurants have to follow the same rules, none will be hurt.

3. Agreed that citizens need to speak up more - it's disappointing that more people aren't in direct contact with their representatives.  But don't any of these politicians read public opinion polls?  It doesn't take a knock on the door, phone call, or email from the NOVA citizens for a representative to know that the vast majority of constituents support this smoking ban.



OSHA (leftofcenter - 1/10/2008 10:25:24 AM)
sucks here in VA. As you might imagine there are many violations at UVA-mostly medical-ie needle sticks etc. So when you file an OSHA complaint, they CALL UVA and tell them they are coming for an inspection. This gives UVA plenty of time to get in compliance instead of a surprise on site visit. Workman's comp laws here are also horrific.
Unfortunately there's no one to take on all these issues and get the laws changed. Labor is weak, the rethugs run the house and the political will just isn't there to protect workers.
Pretty damn sad for us regular workers.


The Answer is Yes (Teddy - 1/10/2008 12:41:13 PM)
"I presume, by this same reasoning, they want to get rid of all other OSHA regulations?"  You even need to ask?


Some balance (citizenindy - 1/10/2008 10:21:01 AM)
The Washington Post argument is very weak.  Noone is forcing anyone to work in a smokey environment.  

Additionally the market would work if people refused to work or PATRON smoke establishments.  And actually, the market is working because there are many resturants that have gone smoke-free.  

Finally, this is just another example of the nanny state of government.  Transfat is probably not far behind.  



C'mon, even you have (Eric - 1/10/2008 10:43:06 AM)
to admit smoking is different than transfat.  The nanny state label might be worth discussing when related to transfat, but someone who smokes effects not only themselves but anyone who breathes the same air.  This issue is not about the government saying you can't smoke - it's about the government saying you have no right to pollute someone else's fresh air.


Response (citizenindy - 1/10/2008 11:30:01 AM)
Does the government own resturants? No they are private busineeses and should be free to set policy.  The individual has the choice about whether to patron a particular establishment.  

Also this creates a very dangerous slippery slope.  Where do you draw the line of government knows best.  Before you laugh take a hard look at what Arlington is seriously considering.  Not only transfat, but taking peoples cars away, seizing property for the "common good", mandating "affordable housing" requirements etc...  



Ummm... (Tom Joad (Kevin) - 1/10/2008 11:40:15 AM)
yeah. The government does that already. Heard of the department of health? But I presume that you find a little rat feces is healthy!


You'd abolish OSHA, then? (Lowell - 1/10/2008 11:44:52 AM)
And all safety/health regulations for "private" businesses?  Alright, let's be like Communist China, sounds great!  snark


Last one (citizenindy - 1/10/2008 12:03:32 PM)
I know its not going to make sense to most of you but over time everything would sort it self out

Businesses that have nasty reputations would lose customers
and the businesses that are run well would survive

I can't really comment on OSHA however I would be willing to bet that most people have never dealt with them.  Also, noone is forcing anyone to stay at a job.  If the job is that bad leave and find a new one.  

Look, bottom line its going to be an agree to disagree. Its why there are two parties. I just happen to think that most people don't need or want the government telling them what to do.  Call it the Rugged Individualisim yes there are still some of us out here :-p



Again, this is NOT about the customers (Lowell - 1/10/2008 12:05:39 PM)
They can go somewhere else.  It's about the WORKERS, who often don't have many options.  


I find it very hard to believe that (citizenindy - 1/10/2008 1:09:56 PM)
most of these workers dont have any other options

Most of these jobs are on the low-end of the pay scale and there are always plenty of jobs in that category



That's why you're a Republican (Lowell - 1/10/2008 1:21:33 PM)
and I'm not.


Ladies and gentlemen ... (TheGreenMiles - 1/10/2008 2:55:53 PM)
Ron Paul has joined Raising Kaine! Everyone give him a nice welcome.


Post Signs at Restaurants (jackiehva - 1/10/2008 10:58:41 AM)
I would like to know if a restaurant permits smoking as I approach the door or look it up on the Internet.  As things stand now, I have to stick my nose in the door and if I smell cigarette smoke, I go elsewhere to dine.

So, GA, if you don't have the cajones to pass a total ban in restaurants, at least pass a law forcing "smoking-allowed" restaurants to state this outside the entrance(s).



Kaine vetoed that exact bill last year n/t (citizenindy - 1/10/2008 11:24:49 AM)


Not exactly (UVAHoo - 1/10/2008 1:38:24 PM)
The bill you're referring to would have allowed establishments to eliminate no-smoking sections in return for posting a "Smoking Allowed" sign.  He amended the bill to ban smoking in restaurants and bars.  The House rejected the amendment so Kaine vetoed the bill because it would have allowed for the elimination of nonsmoking sections.


Cole & Howell ? "Shocked!" (hereinva - 1/10/2008 10:59:00 AM)
Butt really not shocked. Cole and Howell represent the land of the "Butt Flickers", persons who toss their cigs out the window. A couple of years back a local Stafford Supervisor
tried to raise the publics awareness of the negative impacts of flinging trash and butts out the windows. It seemed to get them more motivated to do the same. If you notice folks often hang their hands w/cigs out the window to keep the smoke outside the car. Always thought it was ironic-considering they don't mind inhaling the stuff directly into their lungs.

If a restaurant or other venue has a "whiff of smoke"..I "vote with my feet" and leave. Unfortunately employees do not have a similar option other than quitting.



But if people can't smoke in bars (Jack Landers - 1/10/2008 11:04:51 AM)
then how will we be able to tell who the cool people are?


Easy (TheGreenMiles - 1/10/2008 2:57:24 PM)
The ones with the collars of their polo shirts up, wearing flip flops with long pants, and drinking Heineken.


I would like to propose a ban (Sui Juris - 1/10/2008 7:20:11 PM)
on all of those behaviors individually. If committed in combination, I'd like the punishment to be expulsion from the state.


Good point, but you can always (Lowell - 1/10/2008 3:00:02 PM)
examine their diseased, ravaged lungs to see how "cool" they are!  


and I've heard of your troubles and I've heard you're unhappy (Jack Landers - 1/10/2008 5:36:17 PM)
I think it could all get much more complicated than that.

Trips through the star-off machine will be involved. Until no one can tell whether this one is that one or that one is this one or which one is who.



I lived in Delaware (mkfox - 1/10/2008 3:39:59 PM)
when it became one of the first states to adopt a smoking ban. There was the usual "right to smoke" and business' rights rhetoric as we see from opponents anywhere else, but also concerns about losing business to neighboring states -- Delaware comprised of just three counties and bordering Maryland, Pennsylvania and Jersey made the argument more credible. But after the enactment, it really didn't hurt businesses because people won't stop going to their favorite restaurants or instead drive an extra several miles to go someplace else. I fully support a smoking ban in Virginia! Crowded bars full of college kids dancing and smoking is probably the most annoyingly unhealthy environment I've been in; not to mention once getting burned by some dimwit's cigarette accidentally on a dance floor!

Go Hens! Beat ODU! ;)



Since there are far, FAR more nonsmokers (Lowell - 1/10/2008 3:42:52 PM)
than smokers, a smoking ban should only HELP business. In fact, I believe that's what all the evidence from other states has shown.